Welcome back to best college football blog that no one knows about! It's the last week of September, and that means a few things. For most of the country, Fall has returned. ALL OF YOU CAN GO TO HELL!!! It was 92 degrees in Tallahassee today, and my personal rebellion of wearing jeans because that's-what-I should-be able-to-do has done nothing to bring about cooler temperatures, and has most likely contributed to a few unfortunate, less-than-adequate deodorant days. It also means most teams have played four games, and at least one being against a conference opponent, which means we have a legitimate sample size to review how my predictions are holding up. Away we go ...
1. Alabama (Conference Champion)
-- No issues here. Currently #2 in both polls, and all appears to be well in Tuscaloosa. The defense - specifically, the secondary and linebackers - is scarier that The Blair Witch Project for opposing offenses. A solid win over Arkansas, albeit at home, confirms that this Bama team is as advertised, i.e. a favorite to win the National Championship.
2. Oklahoma (Conference Champion)
-- The preseason #1 finds itself at #3 this week, and largely through no fault of its own. The Sooners beat then #5 FSU in Tallahassee, which stands as the only win against a top 5 team this season. But that win was mitigated by the early departure of EJ Manuel, and the fact that FSU still took the game to the wire. While it may have mostly been a case of a talented, resilient FSU team that refused to go quietly into the night, Oklahoma has dropped to #3 in large part due to the dominance of LSU and Alabama. CAVEAT: the last time a preseason #1 got demoted early on without losing a game was Georgia in 2009. And while Oklahoma is in much better physical shape than that injury-riddled Georgia team that ultimately finished with 3 loses, there are still similarities. The most important being this -- no one is saying Oklahoma isn't a very good team, but people are pretty sure there are two teams that are clearly better.
3. FSU (Conference Champion)
-- The phrase "snake bitten" comes to mind. We'll never know if FSU would have beaten Oklahoma had EJ Manuel not been knocked out of the game with a shoulder injury, but the Seminoles, with a RS Freshman QB playing in his first college football game, forced Oklahoma to win the game. FSU then caught a hot and supremely confident Clemson team in Death Valley, fresh off snapping Auburn's 17 game winning streak. And still, FSU took it to the final snap, only losing by 5. The heart of this young team is clear, and these trials of adversity will pay dividends later down the road. But the loss of Manuel, FSU's quarterback and recognized team leader, cannot be overstated.
4. LSU
-- It's Les Miles crazy dream, and we're just living in it. LSU currently sits atop the mountain, and rightly so. The Tigers have beaten 3 ranked teams in resounding fashion, all in the FIRST FOUR GAMES OF THE SEASON. The defense is poetry in motion, a wild spirit of precision and destruction that can only be observed, never tamed. But many words have been written about LSU's defensive prowess. Instead, I'll direct you to my original Top 10 prediction post (which had LSU at #1) and then my revision (which had LSU at #4). I dropped the Tigers SOLELY because Miles had made the incredulous decision to stick with Jordan Jefferson at QB, something I simply didn't expect. But outside forces did Miles a favor when Jefferson was arrested for allegedly kicking a man outside of a bar. That is not meant to lessen the seriousness of Jefferson's current situation, or to poke fun at it. It is simply to recognize that the emergence of Jarrett Lee has represented a substantial improvement at QB, and questions at that position coming into this season is the ONLY reason why I didn't have LSU at #1.
5. Nebraska (Conference Champion)
-- An unknown quantity in this bunch, a team that hasn't faced a true test thus far. Nonetheless, the results up to this point have been a few degrees less than barn storming. Accordingly, Nebraska has crept up the rankings, and currently sits at #8. Wisconsin awaits in 6 days time.
6. Oregon (Conference Champion)
-- Despite being manhandled by LSU to the tune of 40-27 on a neutral site, the Ducks fell too far down in the polls. They've made it back to #9 on the strength of a few Oregon-like offensive explosions against PAC 12 foes. Considering the state of chaos in the PAC 12, and Stanford's recent rash of devastating injuries, a conference championship and top 8 finish is still very much in the cards for the Ducks.
7. Virginia Tech
-- See, Nebraska. We'll know more after Clemson leaves Blacksburg.
8. Notre Dame
-- Strike one! Big swing and miss here. I admit it. It isn't an important question for the purposes of this particular discussion, but I must ask it: is Notre Dame simply a work in progress, was Brian Kelly oversold, or has Notre Dame - as a football institution - fallen too far behind the times?
9. Boise St. (Conference Champion)
-- The Broncos currently sit at #4, and Peterson's and Moore's stock has never been higher. I admit it, I initially slated Boise at #9 because I thought my Dawgs would beat the Broncos in week 1. My heart talked louder than my head. So I will make amends. The Broncos will go undefeated this year, and they'll finish top 4 at the very worst.
10. Texas A&M
-- I couldn't really decide between A&M, Oklahoma St, Wisconsin, and South Carolina as to who should slide into the final spot in my Top 10. I thought each of the four were due for a minimum of two loses, and I believed that A&M wouldn't lose against bad teams and wound manage to beat some very good ones, meaning they would finish at #10. They very well may still land at #10. The Aggies lost to a very good, and a very emotional Oklahoma St team. We'll just have to wait and see.
OVERSIGHTS, NEVER APOLOGIES
Wisconsin -- Even with Russell Wilson, the Badgers are not in the realm of the LSU's, Alabama's, and Oklahoma's. But I must admit that I underestimated the impact a gifted and mature player like Wilson would have on a team that lost very little from last year, and was probably held back by quarterback play in the grand scheme of things. I still don't think Wisconsin is a top 5 team, but they haven't had the chance to prove me wrong yet. But they do deserve a spot in the top 10, and I was wrong to exclude them.
Oklahoma St -- I really can't be faulted much for this, considering that people who get paid big money to predict these things also didn't find the Cowboys deserving of uncontested top 10 consideration. There were simply too many question marks. How would the offense perform without Holgorsen, and with an OC who was taught the offense by the quarterback? How could a team with a perennial mediocre defense manage to keep up with Oklahoma and A&M, teams with equally prolific offenses and supposedly superior defenses? Well, the Cowboys have answered a few of those questions in impressive fashion.
And I'll even go a step further. OK St doesn't face Oklahoma until December 3rd, but the game is in Stillwater, and if it they played this weekend instead, I'd take the Cowboys. Maybe OK St was just playing inspired ball this past Saturday, but I saw a defense good enough to slow down Landry and Co., and I think the Cowboys are more explosion on offense.
The ebbs and flows of a season can change the complexion of a game, while not always more so, but in a different way than simple X's and O's. No one knows what the Bedlam matchup will mean for these two teams, but it very well could mean an undefeated season and potential National Championship game for the Cowboys. And I'm not alone in failing to foresee that scenario for the Fighting Gundy's.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Georgia - South Carolina: 5 Thoughts
The woman and I made the trek up to the Classic City this past weekend for the game, so all of you were deprived of my "5 Thoughts" that usually come to you via Twitter. Fear not, loyal followers. Here they are ...
1) Let's start with what I liked, shall we? Under CTG, the defense had their best game yet. In my opinion, our D-line was the best unit in the trenches for the majority of the game, either side considered. Geathers and Jenkins consistently clogged the middle, and occasionally created pressure in the backfield. Lattimore ripped off a few big runs in the 4th, but I attribute those mostly to his exceptional talent. The DBs played well, but took poor position on a few key conversions. The LB core played really well considering Tree wasn't there. More on that latter.
2) As far as the offensive gameplan and play calling goes, it was the tale of two games. The first half was classic Bobo - conservative, predictable, oblivious to our playmakers and what Carolina's defense was giving us. In other words, 13 points when it should've been 17 or maybe even 21. The second half was a welcome blast from the past. We called some quick hits across the middle, exposing their vulnerable linebackers. We lined up in power sets and had success. We lined up in power sets but ran toss sweeps or counters. We got the ball to our young playmakers: Crowell and Mitchell.
3) Crowell, Mitchell, and J. Jones. One word - wow. Instead of replaying some of their best plays, because I know you saw them, I'll just drool. Crowell, simply put, is as advertised. Mitchell isn't the freak talent that was AJ Green, but he's just as dangerous, albeit in a different way. He's quicker, and clearly has an innate feel for the game. Jones means as much for our 3-4 as Geathers and Jenkins do. His sideline-to-sideline speed is something we haven't seen in a Georgia LB for a while. And unlike Justin Houston, he doesn't seem to take plays off. These three are gems.
And now, you knew it was coming, the things that bothered me.
4) In his second year, Aaron Murray is playing like he probably should have in his first. Don't get me wrong. Murray is a wonderful talent, and he appears to possess the ability to let a mistake go instead of allowing it to stain the rest of his game. He made some great throws, and often made plays with his feet. But the mistakes are hard to look past. The Clowney sack-fumble, and the fumbled handoff to Crowell are too easy to point out. However, those are easily corrected. What bothered me most was what he did for most of the game, and what was made quite obvious on the pick 6 -- Murray was staring down receivers all game long. I'm not quite sure whether this should truly bother me, if I should just chalk it up to a true sophomore gradually learning to be a better QB, or if it is simply a product of him running for his life for one and a half years which would make any of us want to get the ball off to the 1st option every play. Either way, it's indisputable that we've witnessed some growing pains in the past two games.
5) We are now 6-9 over our last 15 games. That's a powerful stat. But this one is downright shocking: we are 1-9 against ranked teams in the last 10 games. In other words, we are Ole Miss. There has long been a place for mediocre SEC teams that feast on the DII's and Vanderbilt's, and in turn are eaten by the elite SEC programs. We have officially taken up residence in this place.
Not too long ago, I ignored the relative success of our 9 or 8 win seasons by harping on our lack of a mean streak, our mental and physical weakness in the 4th quarter. Now it seems that many Georgia fans wish to ignore our abysmal record, and instead find encouragement in our progress and young talent. In moments here and there, I have been one of those fans.
But I have finally realized the logical fallacy in both arguments when held against each other.
Look only at the bright side, and we should have been a top 15 team last year and a top 15 now. We are not that team.
Look at both sides mixed in together, and we're a solid top 25 team; a few games we shouldn't have lost, a few games probably shouldn't have won, but an altogether above average team in both record and aesthetics. We aren't that team either.
But if, instead, you look at the criticisms, we are a team that hasn't beaten a good team in 3 years, a team cites injuries as an excuse twice too often, a team that has come to define the perennial underachiever. We are that team.
After 2009, I jumped off the CMR bandwagon for the first time. Since then, I have been coaxed back on, jumped off, and then been coaxed back on again. No more. My small knowledge of what it takes to be successful in college football and short time on this earth aside, I know enough to call a bluff when I see one. CMR is a damn good coach. It would be senseless to argue otherwise. But in the past 7 years, he has let one of Georgia's best DC's slip away, replaced him with ill-equiped college buddy, waited until the last minute to remove said ill-equiped friend, relinquished offensive duties to another ill-equiped friend, all the while largely ignoring more talented coaches either through blissful ignorance or blind loyalty.
The greatest indictment against Richt is not that he has lost his touch recruiting players or coaching football, it is that he has completely failed at evaluating and hiring talented coaches and coordinators, or worse, naively believed that he didn't have to, believed that the rules of the game somehow didn't apply to him. In other words, as a head coach - the CEO of the program - he has displayed an inexcusable inability to put his team in a position to be successful.
It should come as no surprise that success has been hard to find in Athens these past few years.
1) Let's start with what I liked, shall we? Under CTG, the defense had their best game yet. In my opinion, our D-line was the best unit in the trenches for the majority of the game, either side considered. Geathers and Jenkins consistently clogged the middle, and occasionally created pressure in the backfield. Lattimore ripped off a few big runs in the 4th, but I attribute those mostly to his exceptional talent. The DBs played well, but took poor position on a few key conversions. The LB core played really well considering Tree wasn't there. More on that latter.
2) As far as the offensive gameplan and play calling goes, it was the tale of two games. The first half was classic Bobo - conservative, predictable, oblivious to our playmakers and what Carolina's defense was giving us. In other words, 13 points when it should've been 17 or maybe even 21. The second half was a welcome blast from the past. We called some quick hits across the middle, exposing their vulnerable linebackers. We lined up in power sets and had success. We lined up in power sets but ran toss sweeps or counters. We got the ball to our young playmakers: Crowell and Mitchell.
3) Crowell, Mitchell, and J. Jones. One word - wow. Instead of replaying some of their best plays, because I know you saw them, I'll just drool. Crowell, simply put, is as advertised. Mitchell isn't the freak talent that was AJ Green, but he's just as dangerous, albeit in a different way. He's quicker, and clearly has an innate feel for the game. Jones means as much for our 3-4 as Geathers and Jenkins do. His sideline-to-sideline speed is something we haven't seen in a Georgia LB for a while. And unlike Justin Houston, he doesn't seem to take plays off. These three are gems.
And now, you knew it was coming, the things that bothered me.
4) In his second year, Aaron Murray is playing like he probably should have in his first. Don't get me wrong. Murray is a wonderful talent, and he appears to possess the ability to let a mistake go instead of allowing it to stain the rest of his game. He made some great throws, and often made plays with his feet. But the mistakes are hard to look past. The Clowney sack-fumble, and the fumbled handoff to Crowell are too easy to point out. However, those are easily corrected. What bothered me most was what he did for most of the game, and what was made quite obvious on the pick 6 -- Murray was staring down receivers all game long. I'm not quite sure whether this should truly bother me, if I should just chalk it up to a true sophomore gradually learning to be a better QB, or if it is simply a product of him running for his life for one and a half years which would make any of us want to get the ball off to the 1st option every play. Either way, it's indisputable that we've witnessed some growing pains in the past two games.
5) We are now 6-9 over our last 15 games. That's a powerful stat. But this one is downright shocking: we are 1-9 against ranked teams in the last 10 games. In other words, we are Ole Miss. There has long been a place for mediocre SEC teams that feast on the DII's and Vanderbilt's, and in turn are eaten by the elite SEC programs. We have officially taken up residence in this place.
Not too long ago, I ignored the relative success of our 9 or 8 win seasons by harping on our lack of a mean streak, our mental and physical weakness in the 4th quarter. Now it seems that many Georgia fans wish to ignore our abysmal record, and instead find encouragement in our progress and young talent. In moments here and there, I have been one of those fans.
But I have finally realized the logical fallacy in both arguments when held against each other.
Look only at the bright side, and we should have been a top 15 team last year and a top 15 now. We are not that team.
Look at both sides mixed in together, and we're a solid top 25 team; a few games we shouldn't have lost, a few games probably shouldn't have won, but an altogether above average team in both record and aesthetics. We aren't that team either.
But if, instead, you look at the criticisms, we are a team that hasn't beaten a good team in 3 years, a team cites injuries as an excuse twice too often, a team that has come to define the perennial underachiever. We are that team.
After 2009, I jumped off the CMR bandwagon for the first time. Since then, I have been coaxed back on, jumped off, and then been coaxed back on again. No more. My small knowledge of what it takes to be successful in college football and short time on this earth aside, I know enough to call a bluff when I see one. CMR is a damn good coach. It would be senseless to argue otherwise. But in the past 7 years, he has let one of Georgia's best DC's slip away, replaced him with ill-equiped college buddy, waited until the last minute to remove said ill-equiped friend, relinquished offensive duties to another ill-equiped friend, all the while largely ignoring more talented coaches either through blissful ignorance or blind loyalty.
The greatest indictment against Richt is not that he has lost his touch recruiting players or coaching football, it is that he has completely failed at evaluating and hiring talented coaches and coordinators, or worse, naively believed that he didn't have to, believed that the rules of the game somehow didn't apply to him. In other words, as a head coach - the CEO of the program - he has displayed an inexcusable inability to put his team in a position to be successful.
It should come as no surprise that success has been hard to find in Athens these past few years.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
10 Years Ago
If you follow my Twitter account - and I know you do! - the link I posted to Tom Junod's article for Esquire must still be careening off the sharp edges inside your brain. It sure is in mine. If you're missing the link, here it is: http://tinyurl.com/2fgmwe
Junod's article is arresting. I've tried to think of other words, maybe a string of them, to describe what his words did to me some seven years after he wrote them, and I kept coming back to that word -- arresting. The story he told, told painfully through the frames and lives of others, took custody of my idle thoughts for a good two days. If you haven't read the article, read it. If you have read it, read it again. I've read it three times already.
But unlike Junod, I am not a journalist, and while his words were chosen from a certain time and space, mine come from a generational plane, and cannot help but look forward because I do.
I've written and talked a lot about the ways 9/11 impacted, influenced, and shaped my generation - the Millennials. And I've often thought that the impressions that indescribable day left will not truly become visible until my generation grows into full adulthood and fills the various positions of power. For the past decade, people of stature and voice have reconstructed the world based on their reaction to 9/11. But a reaction is one thing, a childhood is another. While our recent past and now current leaders have certainly been changed by 9/11, it is just that -- a change. They reevaluated, recalculated, and re-imagined the world, all done upon the foundation of a construction and experience absent of the solvent that was September 11, 2001. That starting point is miles apart from the experience that is solely the tale my generation. Instead, my generation did not react to 9/11. My generation is, first, a product of that day, marked by the confusion and uncertainty of a unforeseen twist in an otherwise predictable story. And we are, second, the answer and explanation, the coming-of-age tale that marks, where those that came before us couldn't, the break in the narrative. We aren't Chapter 2. We are a completely separate book.
While I fully supported Barack Obama in 2008, I chafed at how the media cast the support he received from the youth, i.e. Us. The messages of "hope" and "change" were certainly borne is his own mind and vision, but the enthusiasm with which those ideas were met by the young was cast, by the media, as simple youthful exuberance.
We were miscast.
Simple youthful exuberance is not novel to any generation. We all remember those moments of availability and the romance of what is possible. But "hope" and "change" have too often been cheapened, and at times it becomes easy to miss the jarring significance of what those words really mean. For my generation, Obama was not a sunny afternoon dream. This much should have been apparent to many of the older, observant commentators. After all, the youth vote is famously underwhelming.
Instead of rainbows and butterflies, what Obama meant to us was a chance to soothe the scar tissue, an opportunity to rise above - while never forgetting - the smoke and ash that defined the terms in our life's dictionary.
We Millennials have been called "Confident, Connected, Open to Change." We've also been called whiny, weak, and lazy.
We are neither.
While it may be difficult to describe us, we are no different than other indescribable things. In other words, we are defined by what we are not. And what we are not is this -- we are not like the rest of all the human beings currently inhabiting western liberal democracies because they have never lived through a moment, a day, a history like 9/11 in the way that we did - in the midst of the most transformative period of our lives.
For everyone else, 9/11 happened, and they changed.
For us, 9/11 happened.
We are the primer. Whenever you turn on the TV, or open your newspaper, you will hear or read about the new rules of the world, about how things are different than they were before, and why the view of the world should be this way, or that.
Remember that they aren't really talking about an idea or a strategy.
They're talking about us.
Junod's article is arresting. I've tried to think of other words, maybe a string of them, to describe what his words did to me some seven years after he wrote them, and I kept coming back to that word -- arresting. The story he told, told painfully through the frames and lives of others, took custody of my idle thoughts for a good two days. If you haven't read the article, read it. If you have read it, read it again. I've read it three times already.
But unlike Junod, I am not a journalist, and while his words were chosen from a certain time and space, mine come from a generational plane, and cannot help but look forward because I do.
I've written and talked a lot about the ways 9/11 impacted, influenced, and shaped my generation - the Millennials. And I've often thought that the impressions that indescribable day left will not truly become visible until my generation grows into full adulthood and fills the various positions of power. For the past decade, people of stature and voice have reconstructed the world based on their reaction to 9/11. But a reaction is one thing, a childhood is another. While our recent past and now current leaders have certainly been changed by 9/11, it is just that -- a change. They reevaluated, recalculated, and re-imagined the world, all done upon the foundation of a construction and experience absent of the solvent that was September 11, 2001. That starting point is miles apart from the experience that is solely the tale my generation. Instead, my generation did not react to 9/11. My generation is, first, a product of that day, marked by the confusion and uncertainty of a unforeseen twist in an otherwise predictable story. And we are, second, the answer and explanation, the coming-of-age tale that marks, where those that came before us couldn't, the break in the narrative. We aren't Chapter 2. We are a completely separate book.
While I fully supported Barack Obama in 2008, I chafed at how the media cast the support he received from the youth, i.e. Us. The messages of "hope" and "change" were certainly borne is his own mind and vision, but the enthusiasm with which those ideas were met by the young was cast, by the media, as simple youthful exuberance.
We were miscast.
Simple youthful exuberance is not novel to any generation. We all remember those moments of availability and the romance of what is possible. But "hope" and "change" have too often been cheapened, and at times it becomes easy to miss the jarring significance of what those words really mean. For my generation, Obama was not a sunny afternoon dream. This much should have been apparent to many of the older, observant commentators. After all, the youth vote is famously underwhelming.
Instead of rainbows and butterflies, what Obama meant to us was a chance to soothe the scar tissue, an opportunity to rise above - while never forgetting - the smoke and ash that defined the terms in our life's dictionary.
We Millennials have been called "Confident, Connected, Open to Change." We've also been called whiny, weak, and lazy.
We are neither.
While it may be difficult to describe us, we are no different than other indescribable things. In other words, we are defined by what we are not. And what we are not is this -- we are not like the rest of all the human beings currently inhabiting western liberal democracies because they have never lived through a moment, a day, a history like 9/11 in the way that we did - in the midst of the most transformative period of our lives.
For everyone else, 9/11 happened, and they changed.
For us, 9/11 happened.
We are the primer. Whenever you turn on the TV, or open your newspaper, you will hear or read about the new rules of the world, about how things are different than they were before, and why the view of the world should be this way, or that.
Remember that they aren't really talking about an idea or a strategy.
They're talking about us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)